A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison Between Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) and Anterior Mesh (Surelift-A) in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes at 1-Year Follow-Up. | LitMetric

Comparison Between Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) and Anterior Mesh (Surelift-A) in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes at 1-Year Follow-Up.

Int Urogynecol J

Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kwei-Shan, Tao-Yuan City, Taiwan, 333.

Published: November 2024

Introduction And Hypothesis: Surelift is a transvaginal synthetic mesh (TVM) kit that is intended to treat anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The kit can be configured to use an anterior-apical (Surelift) or anterior (Surelift A) approach. The aims of this study were to evaluate the short-term objective and subjective outcomes of the different approaches at the 1-year follow-up.

Methods: From June 2018 to April 2021, a total of 280 patients with symptomatic advanced POP (stages III and IV) had surgery with the Surelift or Surelift A. The primary outcome was postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as well as subjective evaluation based on the Urinary Distress Inventory 6 (question 3 score > 1) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire 7, during the 1-year follow-up period. Secondary outcomes measured quality of life, the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms, and complications.

Results: In total, 265 patients were assessed. Among these, 137 had Surelift, whereas 128 underwent Surelift A with SSF. At 1-year postoperative follow-up, de novo urodynamic stress incontinence occurred more frequently in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group (28.8% vs 9.1% respectively, p = 0.012). Additionally, Surelift patients had a higher rate of de novo SUI than Surelift A (33.2 vs 11.4 respectively, p = 0.013). Both study groups experienced improvements in their quality of life indicators.

Conclusions: The Surelift device is a safe and effective technique of treating advanced-stage POP. De novo urine incontinence appears to be more common in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group. We found good anatomical outcomes and subjective relief in both study groups, with a low complication rate.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05940-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surelift
12
surelift anterior
8
pelvic organ
8
organ prolapse
8
1-year follow-up
8
quality life
8
surelift group
8
group surelift-a
8
surelift-a group
8
study groups
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!